Considered and decided by Lansing,
Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

LANSING, Judge

Robert Culver appeals from his
sentence for aiding and abetting a first-degree controlled-substance crime,
arguing that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his
motion for either a downward dispositional or durational departure from the
presumptive guidelines sentence. Because
the district court acted within its discretion by imposing a sentence in the
presumptive guidelines range, we affirm.

F
A C T S

The Olmsted County Sheriff’s
Department received a report from a citizen informant who found several garbage
bags that contained chemicals and equipment commonly used for manufacturing
methamphetamine. The garbage bags also
contained mail addressed to Robert Culver.
Culver’s house was located in the area where the garbage bags were
found. Following an investigation, the
state charged Culver with a first-degree controlled-substance crime (manufacturing),
possession of anhydrous ammonia in an improper container, and unlawful
possession of a firearm.

The district court conducted an
omnibus hearing and denied Culver’s motions to dismiss the complaint and to suppress
evidence obtained in a search of Culver’s home and garage. Culver later pleaded guilty to aiding and
abetting a first-degree controlled substance crime in violation of Minnesota
Statutes section 152.021, subdivision 2a, and section 609.05 (2002). The state dismissed the two companion
charges. At the plea hearing, Culver
also pleaded guilty, on a separate file, to a felony charge of violating Minnesota
Statute section 609.49, subdivision 1 (2002), by failing to appear in
court.

Culver moved alternatively for a
downward dispositional or durational sentencing departure. The state opposed the departure, and the
district court heard arguments on the motion prior to sentencing. The district court denied the departure
motion and sentenced Culver to an executed prison term of eighty-one months,
which is the low end of the presumptive range.
The court ordered that at least fifty-four months be served in prison
and the remaining time on supervised release, assuming no disciplinary
violations. The sentencing order also
recommended that Culver be admitted to the Willow River Challenge Incarceration
Program. Culver appeals from the
district court’s imposition of his sentence.

D
E C I S I O N

A district court has broad discretion in
imposing a sentence. Statev.Franklin,
604 N.W.2d 79, 82 (Minn.
2000). The discretion is bounded by the
guidelines requirement that a departure be supported by the presence of aggravating
or mitigating factors. State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d
85, 88 (Minn.
1999). A downward departure requires the
presence of “substantial and compelling circumstances.” Statev. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn.
1981). But the presence of a mitigating
factor does not require departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. Statev. Oberg, 627 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Aug. 22,
2001). Consequently, only in rare cases
will we reverse a district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence. Kindem,
313 N.W.2d at 7.

In his departure motion and at the January 2005 sentencing
hearing, Culver argued that substantial and compelling circumstances supported
a downward departure. These
circumstances included his lack of a prior criminal record aside from one
misdemeanor violation of an order for protection, the support of family and
friends, and his amenability to drug treatment as evidenced by his successful
completion of a program while in jail. In
opposition to Culver’s departure motion, the state relied on the recommendation
of the presentence-investigation report that Culver receive a guidelines
sentence and on Culver’s past failures to complete treatment programs or
voluntarily enter recommended treatment programs. In denying Culver’s departure motion, the
district court sentenced Culver to the low end of the presumptive guidelines
sentence “with the recommendation that [Culver] be admitted to the Willow River
Program as soon as possible.”

Culver challenges the district court’s decision to impose
the presumptive guidelines sentence
instead of a downward dispositional departure and contends that the district
court abused its discretion by failing to consider the amenability
factors. We disagree. The discussion in the eighteen-page
transcript of the sentencing hearing relates primarily to Culver’s amenability
or lack of amenability to treatment. At
the hearing the district court specifically referred to the contents of the presentence-investigation
report that recommended that Culver not receive a downward departure. The probation officer who prepared the report
based her recommendation on Culver’s longstanding chemical-abuse problems,
evidenced by four driving-while-impaired offenses and a possession-of-marijuana
offense; his on-probation and in-treatment status at the time of his current
offenses; and his failure to take responsibility for his involvement or
even acknowledge that he knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on his
property.

The prosecutor addressed each of the reasons that Culver
advanced for a departure. He pointed out
Culver’s history of noncompliance with court orders, including a four-month
period following Culver’s failure to appear for a court-ordered hearing. He acknowledged that Culver has strong family
support, but argued that the same family support was present earlier when
Culver failed to complete or enroll in recommended treatment programs. And he emphasized that Culver has been unable
to successfully complete any voluntary treatment program and that these
repetitive failures demonstrate that incarceration is necessary for successful
treatment.

The district court’s statements, questions,
and ultimate sentence establish the court’s knowledge and consideration of the
submitted material, including Culver’s specific arguments for a downward
departure. The district court referred
to the evidence of Culver’s chemical dependency and his struggle with
methamphetamine addiction as qualifications for the WillowRiver
program. The district court also
referred to Culver’s prior history and his need, not only for treatment, but
for aftercare with a high degree of supervision. At the outset of the hearing, the district
court referred to the letters from Culver’s family and the letter from the
representative of Crossroads, a treatment program that concluded that Culver
was amenable to their eight-session treatment program but also stated that
Culver needed intensive, long-term treatment.

We find nothing in the record that
indicates the district court failed to consider the departure arguments that
Culver advanced or that the district court failed to exercise its proper
sentencing function. The district
court’s specific recommendation for Culver’s admission to the WillowRiver
program underscores the district court’s attention to Culver’s individual
circumstances and its attention to realistic rehabilitation.